In the Classroom
Crossing the Chasm with Classroom Response Systems by Marcy H. Towns Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2084
[email protected] Classroom response systems (CRS) have been disseminated across chemistry classrooms. Some faculty members have enthusiastically embraced CRS, while others have resisted its implementation. Some faculty describe CRS as an essential pedagogical tool, others have abandon its use, and still others have no interest in using it at all. Is there a model that can be used to understand these adoption patterns? Literature on the adoption of technology provides a lens through which to view this diffusion of CRS among faculty as described in Moore's “Crossing the Chasm” (1). The value in using this lens is that it allows one to understand why some faculty have adopted CRS, and why some faculty have abandoned this innovation, while others have simply watched it pass by. The model may also open a route by which we can encourage and support colleagues who are reluctant to use CRS. Faculty Profiles and Adoption of Innovation A discontinuous innovation is a product that requires us to change our behavior (1). CRS are an example of such a product because they require faculty to change classroom practices. How can the adoption of disruptive technological innovations by faculty be explained? Rogers (2) was the first to describe the way in which innovations diffuse. He proposed five classifications of adopters and plotted them along a bell curve as shown in Figure 1. Each segment is one standard deviation wide, except for the laggards, which is two standard deviations wide. The “Technology Adoption Life Cycle”, as shown in Figure 1, describes the penetration of a new product such as CRS in terms of the progression of consumers (or faculty) who adopt its use. Although it is dangerous to sort people (such as faculty) into groups, for the sake of using this analysis and argument it is advantageous. Much like the faculty who use CRS, these consumers have distinct psychographic profiles;a blend of the psychology and demographics that make the groups different. The groups are (1): • Innovators;Technology enthusiasts who embrace new technology and are interested in fundamental advancements. They adopt innovations for the sake of the innovation itself. • Early Adopters;Visionaries who find it easy to “imagine, understand, and appreciate the benefits of a new technology”. • Early Majority;Pragmatists who are content to wait and see how a new technology pans out before investing significant resources themselves. • Late Majority;Conservatives who wait until an innovation has become accepted, widely used, and the “established standard”. • Laggards;Skeptics “who don't what anything to do with new technology”.
_
Marketers of technology have identified the innovators and early adopters as the early market, and the early majority, late majority, and laggards as the mainstream market. Experience has taught marketers that the technology adoption life cycle has cracks between each group of consumers. The cracks represent the transition between groups, and three of these are small. The crack that separates the early adopters and the early majority is wider and is known as the “chasm”, as shown in Figure 2. It defines the break between the early market and the mainstream market. Not every technological innovation makes it across the chasm to the majority of consumers into the mainstream markets. For example, the first PDA devices (personal digital assistants) were known as the Sharp Wizard, the Casio Bass, and the Apple Newton. None of these devices were able to cross the chasm for a variety of reasons. However, the Palm Pilot actually did make it across the chasm and became widely adopted. In education, technology innovations that are not widely adopted may be replaced by a new product that is more widely accessible for classroom use. The interactive videodisc was never widely adopted across classrooms, failed to cross the chasm, and is now considered to be obsolete. However, it has been replaced by products such as the CD-ROM, DVD, or QuickTime movies that are widely used in chemistry classrooms. Visionaries and Pragmatists: The Early Adopters and The Early Majority How can the revised technology adoption life cycle model be used to explain the adoption of CRS by chemistry faculty? Those who rapidly embraced the use of CRS were the innovators and early adopters. They were the early market. These faculty wanted to change the pedagogical landscape of their classroom. CRS allowed them to integrate formative assessment directly into lecture by responding to feedback about student learning in real time, and appropriately adjusting lectures. Simultaneously, students could receive immediate feedback on their learning. Early adopters are described as change agents (1). These faculty are visionaries who anticipate a large return on their investment of time and energy in adopting CRS. They are tolerant of learning new software and addressing “bugs and glitches” that CRS can bring to the classroom. They are vocal and enthusiastic proponents of using CRS. Across the chasm lies the early majority and this group's characteristics are fundamentally different than the early adopters. This group is very pragmatic. These faculty are focused on increasing productivity, in terms of producing measurable learning gains and improving their own teaching practices. The technological advantage they seek is based upon enhancement.
_
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Vol. 87 No. 12 December 2010 10.1021/ed9000624 Published on Web 08/30/2010
_
Journal of Chemical Education
1317
In the Classroom
Figure 1. Graphical representation of the technology adoption life cycle (1) as adapted from ref 2.
The visionary should carefully listen to the pragmatist's concerns and frustrations, collaborate to develop possible solutions, and provide support to produce the enhanced classroom performance he or she seeks. Once the chasm has been crossed and the number of early majority faculty using CRS increases, how does the late majority come into play? This group supports tradition, so once CRS has become the established standard in a department via the early majority, the late majority faculty are much more likely to adopt and sustain its use. The last group is the laggards. This group is extremely skeptical of technological innovation such as CRS and tends to make its decisions based on past practices. Given that many chemistry faculty may be persuaded with data, demonstrating positive effects on classroom outcomes via well designed-studies featuring CRS may be the method by which more traditional faculty can be convinced to act. However, when Rogers developed and described his adopter classification scheme, he noted that adoption might not be 100% complete (2). Thus, there may be faculty who despite the best efforts of their colleagues remain ensconced in the laggards. Using Literature and Resources To Support Classroom Practices
Figure 2. Graphical representation of the revised technology adoption life cycle as adapted from ref 2, identifying the chasm between the early adopters and early majority (1).
They have little to no desire to debug a product. If they adopt it, then it must work properly and flawlessly. In addition, the technology must be easily integrated into current classroom practices regardless of the classroom framework;large lecture, small lecture, process-oriented, guided-inquiry learning (POGIL), peer instruction, or laboratory. These characteristics and attributes define the differences between faculty who are early adopters and those who are early majority in the CRS landscape. Adding to the complexity of adoption is the fact that the early majority is self-referencing. The people they trust and esteem are other early majority members, not the eager disruptive early adopters. The person that they wish to follow in adoption is another pragmatist who values productivity as they do, not the visionaries who are ready for revolution in the classroom. Crossing the Chasm Given the differences between the early adopters and the early majority, what can be done to cross the chasm? How can the pragmatic early majority be encouraged to use CRS in their current classroom practices? How can a self-referencing group member be persuaded to embrace a potentially disruptive innovation presented by someone outside the group? A possible answer lies in the marketing literature where Moore suggests finding a “pragmatist in pain” (1). That faculty member may be described as concerned about or frustrated with the outcomes of his or her classroom practices. Thus, this person may be motivated to try something “new”, and to be influenced by a faculty member outside of his or her early majority group. If CRS addresses the issues the pragmatist faces, then the visionary can offer to help integrate CRS into his or her classroom. 1318
Journal of Chemical Education
_
Vol. 87 No. 12 December 2010
_
Current research and practitioner CRS literature contains ideas that can be adapted to support sustained implementation. The literature can be mined for implementation methods that will be appealing to every group of CRS adopters. For example, CRS has been creatively used to gauge the perceived level of mental effort (3), evaluate the type of questions being asked of students (4, 5), and compare the impact of different course structures on student learning (6, 7). Peer discussion has also been effectively used with CRS and has been shown to improve student understanding when isomorphic CRS questions are used (8). McArthur and Jones have published a review of the literature emphasizing pedagogical implications and insights on practical use of CRS in college chemistry classrooms (9). Many publishers such as Cengage, McGraw-Hill, and Pearson Publishing offer CRS questions as part of the supplementary resources available via textbook adoption. Independent of any specific general chemistry text, Asirvatham has published a book with over 250 field-tested, lecture-ready questions that include macroscopic, symbolic, and particulate representations of molecules and processes (10). Publisher resources, books, and peer-reviewed literature can assist faculty seeking CRS question banks, guidance on developing effective questions, and classroom efficacy data. This body of literature and resources can be used to support and sustain CRS in the classroom. Final Thoughts about Chasm Crossing The revised technology adoption life cycle can be used as a lens through which to view adoption and sustained implementation of CRS. Recognizing that faculty members hold a continuum of perspectives on technology adoption based upon Roger's and Moore's (1, 2) categorizations of different groups can help faculty understand colleagues who enthusiastically embrace new technology, pragmatists whose adoption practices are more deliberate, and those who are extremely skeptical. Resources from publishers, independent books, and the research and practitioner literature can assist faculty in developing CRS
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
In the Classroom
questions and methods of use that support desired classroom outcomes (3-10). CRS will not be the last disruptive technology to be adopted by chemistry faculty. Being familiar with technology adoption patterns described by Moore (1) can help faculty support the adoption of emerging technologies and new technologies that the future holds. Literature Cited 1. Moore, G. A. Crossing the Chasm; Collins Business: New York, 2002. 2. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovation, 4th ed.; Free Press: New York, 1995. 3. Murphy, K.; Knaus, K. Going beyond performance: Using clickers in the classroom to map cognitive efficiency. 20th BCCE, Bloomington, IN, 2008. 4. Mundell, J.; Ferguson, R. Clickers: Assessment and diagnostic tools in classrooms. 20th BCCE, Bloomington, IN, 2008.
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
_
5. Bruck, A.; Towns, M.; Robinson, W. R.; Weaver, C. Does the use of CPS correlate to improve student performance on exams?: An analysis of question types through various theoretical lenses. 20th BCCE, Bloomington, IN, 2008. 6. Asirvatham, M. Clickers in organic chemistry: Comparing student accountability and course performance in general and organic chemistry courses. 20th BCCE, Bloomington, IN, 2008. 7. Bunce, D. M.; VandenPlas, J. R.; Havanki, K. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 488–493. 8. Smith, M. K.; Wood, W. B.; Adams, W. K.; Wieman, C.; Knight, J. K.; Guild, N.; Su, T. T. Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions. Science 2009, 323 (5910), 122-124; DOI: 10.1126/science.1165919. 9. MacArthur, J.; Jones, L. A review of literature reports of clickers applicable to college chemistry classrooms. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2008, 9, 187-195; DOI: 10.1039/b812407h. 10. Asirvatham, M. Clickers in Action: Increasing Student Participation in General Chemistry; W. W. Norton & Co.: New York, 2009.
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
Vol. 87 No. 12 December 2010
_
Journal of Chemical Education
1319
